GLOBAL WARMING It's no joke!

Omega, that graph you provide is false. Look at the graphs I provided earlier where I showed that that graph is INCORRECT INFORMATION.

Satellites- the most accurate form of temperature measurement- show NO significant temperature increase in the last two decades. Any rise is very small- as yerss says- and very 'local'- as the satellites show- insignificant over any major length of time.

You say the polar ice caps are melting abut as Finti points out the best scientists in the field disagree. As I said before, arctic ice has actually thickened in the last year.

You are providing incorrect information this time, Omega. That you could just post that graph after I had a. already posted the same data and b. demolished its accuracy by comparison with accurate and satellite records surprises me greatly.

You say it is 'peculiar' that current warming- exceptionally modest- takes place when we are chucking CO2 into the atmosphere. What is peculiar, if you think it is the cause, that the actual significant increase in temperature in the last century happened before 1940- BEFORE mankind started doing any such thing.

http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20030108IE1

Tell these people where the melting ice is...

(from envirotruth.org)

"The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.

Considerable evidence now supports the carbon cycle modelers' assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels respond to temperature changes, not the reverse:

Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.

At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.

Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise."

And some more:

"A good example of the sort of misinformation that is being publicized regarding this topic is seen in the following quote from Dr. (Zoology) David Suzuki in the June 21, 2002 version of his "Science Matters" column that appeared in newspapers across Canada: "Increased concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced."

Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, responds, "The Suzuki comment displays an ignorance of climate science. Even the Greenpeace report on global warming concedes that water vapour is the most abundant and most important greenhouse gas. Water vapour is ignored because the models can't include clouds. Imagine recommending devastating economic and therefore social policy based on a climate model that can't even include clouds!" In fact, CO2 is less than 3 percent of greenhouse gases (GHG). Water vapor constitutes 97 percent. Other GHG are methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and trace gases.

It is very revealing that an increase in the production of water vapor at the equator during the 1998 El Niño climate event caused worldwide average temperatures to spike by almost 1°C that year. The human contribution to the atmosphere's total water vapor content is trivial by comparison. A study by Dr. Kevin Telmer, Assistant Professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Jan Veizer, Professor of Geology at the University of Ottawa, demonstrates that the larger amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at higher temperature permit more CO2 to be absorbed by plants (see www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00zf.html). Thus, we have a self-regulating system that helps keep the climate in check.

Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed." "

It is worth noting that if there is anywhere that mankind is going to cause global warming, it would most likely be with gases other than CO2 in which we can actually make a worthwhile difference with.

Ush> That the ice thickens this year sounds fine. But it does not rectify the melting that’s gone on the previous years. Are you contesting global warming?
Please, check these pages then: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/, http://www.climatehotmap.org/, http://www.arsc.edu/science/arcticocean.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1894740.stm

As I said before, Ush, the heating in the atmosphere is not equally distributed. As you can see from the picture below, the lower stratosphere is actually cooling. But the surface of the Earth, and the lower trophosphere are warming. It’s the uneven distributions of temperature changes (which satellites have given us knowledge of) that are baffling the scentists.
The Earth appears to have been warmer since 1980 than at any time in the last 18 centuries, scientists say. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3198117.stm
Therefore I may say that YOUR information is the one which is faulty. You quote a page sponsored by a private conservative organisation, a communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. I’m not saying they don’t know anything, Ush (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPRHist.html) just that they’re not meteorologists, but a political group. When you have headlines like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3006448.stm, I do not put my trust in an organisation like the above.

Ragesremorse> Scientists use icecores from, say, Greenland, to study the weather in the past. It does show fluctuations, and periods with warmer and colder temperatures.

(The picture is from NASA http://www.southpole.com/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm)

Well, the satellite data is gathered by NASA. The heat graphs I posted are provided by the organisations that keep the heat stations- not any organisation of which you so claim, and of whom you have posted one grap from as well (the same one...).

Many of your links are provided by the environmental lobby- attack the facts, not the providers, else it is very poor argument indeed. NONE of the information to contest your inaccurate graph is taken from any biased source- you are mixing that up with the quotes I made afterwards.

The satellite data is acknowledged as the best data we have.

I am certainly contesting you if you are trying to make out that warming is causing a melting ice problem.

"Arctic ice primarily just responds to changing wind patterns, thinning in some regions while piling up in others without generally melting. P. Winsor of G¨oteborg University, in Sweden used detailed measurements to conclude in a report published last year, "... there was no trend towards a thinning ice cover during the 1990s. Data from the North Pole shows a slight increase in mean ice thickness, whereas the Beaufort Sea shows a small decrease, none of which are significant."

"It is revealing that actual measurements show conditions in arctic regions to be very different to what our theories predict. For example, Greenland warmed considerably during the 1920s and 1930s long before the recent buildup in greenhouse gases. Since then the temperatures of Greenland coastal stations are decreasing at the rate of 0.2 to 0.3oC per decade (according to Dr. Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, the summer temperatures over the Greenland ice sheet have also been decreasing - in this case at the rate of 2 deg centigrade per decade since 1980's!). So where is the amplified warming of the Arctic? All we are seeing is a shift in regional climate; one part of the Arctic is warming and another is cooling. It is also important to remember that a thousand years ago conditions were so warm that the Vikings were sailing in Arctic waters that are now permanent pack ice.

"The mammoth west Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough water to lift the world's sea levels by about 6 metres, isn't melting. Instead, its thickening and Antarctica is getting cooler. A new study by researchers from the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz, published in the respected journal Science, found that the ice sheets of Antarctica are expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice a year.

Another study, published in a recent edition of the journal Nature, found that air temperatures measured in Antarctica's polar desert valleys actually declined by almost 0.4oC from 1986 to 1999. The study's lead author, limnologist Peter Doran, an expert on the study of fresh water at the University of Illinois at Chicago concludes, "We went into this project with the idea that global warming was going to hit us any time now, and we kept waiting for the warm summers to come and they never came. It just kept getting colder and colder, and that's the story.""

Provided is a graph showing ice levels have not declined as you claim.

As for that ridiculous report about the earth being warmer than for thr last 1800 years- it is based on highly discredited techniques and is not at all credible.

"Greenhouse scientists Michael Mann and Philip Jones (GRL v.30, no.15, 1820, 2003) have launched `Hockey Stick Mk.II'. It will be remembered that Hockey Stick Mk.I was published several years ago and became instantly adopted as policy by the IPCC. In a nutshell, the `Hockey Stick' theory presented a 1,000-year `reconstruction' of northern hemisphere temperature and in so doing denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as hemispheric or global events during the previous millennium. This denial then allowed them to incorrectly assert that the 20th century was warmer than any previous century and that `1998 was the warmest year of the millennium'. This was in spite of a large body of peer reviewed literature confirming the existence of these two climatic events during the last 1,000 years.

Hockey Stick Mk.II now extends the time period back 1,800 years, but using much the same technique, this time taking a mere 23 selected proxy sites (tree rings mostly) to represent the whole world, processing them statistically, and then grafting the result onto the CRU version of global temperature during the last century (that CRU series is itself disputed due to urban contamination of weather station temperature records).

Is this version of climate history credible? Just because it has appeared in peer-reviewed literature is no sufficient reason to accept it. Papers which affirm the existence of the MWP and LIA are peer reviewed too - and much more numerous. So what might be wrong with Hockey Stick Mk.II? Basically, everything that was wrong with Mk.I, namely it denies a mountain of contrary evidence.

Three central problems arise with Hockey Stick Mk.II.

Firstly, grafting a data stream from one type of marker (tree rings and ice cores) onto a completely unrelated data stream (weather station records, most of them urban) is simply bad practice statistically. It's the proverbial apples and oranges comparison, making the result quite meaningless.

Secondly, there was no attempt to deal with the huge volume of peer reviewed literature attesting to the existence of the two major climatic events which Mann & Jones deny - the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. One recent paper by Soon & Baliunas (Clim. Res. 23, 89-110, 2003) also used proxy data and concluded the two events really did happen. But Mann & Jones' response was this comment, delivered as if it were a statement of fact instead of what it really was - merely a statement of their opinion.

"A flawed recent study [Soon and Baliunas, 2003] compels us to stress two points..." etc. etc.

A statement opened and phrased in that way is a clumsy attempt to pre-judge the issue and can only be viewed as a political statement, not a scientific one. Such political tactics do not belong in scientific literature and should have been queried by the reviewers. Opinion is not science, especially in a controversial matter like this.

Finally, tree rings are an unsatisfactory proxy for determining regional or global temperature. They only cover the growing season, not the winters. They only cover the daytimes, not the night. They only cover a fraction of land areas, with no ocean coverage at all (amounting at best to perhaps 15% of the planet's surface). The rings themselves are conditioned by a variety of environmental factors of which temperature is only one.

With such limitations, it is absurd to even imagine that something as grandiose as `global mean temperature' could ever be determined from them, let alone `reconstruct' past temperatures as Mann & Jones have done to a claimed accuracy of tenths of a degree!

As to the 23 proxy sites, that is much too small a sample to conclude anything, particularly as they were selected against other proxies which may have told a different story. If one selectively chose 23 weather stations out of the thousands available, one could even prove we were headed for an ice age, or a global heat wave - selectivity and intensive statistical processing allows any outcome to be produced.

The final nail in the coffin of Hockey Stick Mk.II is contained in their own graphs. In their reconstruction of recent decades (shown below), the authors overlapped the weather station record (red line) with the reconstructed proxy record (blue). And the two make a very poor match. The CRU weather station plot shows much wider temperature variations than the proxy plot. If the weather stations are assumed to be more accurate than the proxies, then the 1,800-year reconstruction presented by Mann & Jones is largely an artifact of statistics and data selectivity. As one commentator remarked -

"It looks like the authors are just averaging together a bunch of noise.""

BTW, that pic you posted is just a child's picture of the atmosphere with words on- on its own doesn't show a thing. But the link you provide agrees with much fo what I say- it being NASA, of course. It also talks of the possible inaccuracy of ground records.

And to counter your link about censorship (which you need to fix- the link doesn't work as provided), here is the same story from a more practical perspective:

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030701-092341-9612r.htm

Gosh, I am bored already...

So anyway, yeah. for my conclusion- nothing proven, try and question everything you are told about global warming because it is rarely the subject of objecitve debate... and so on.

But on the other hand, environmental policies are a good idea because even if man is not making a difference now it does not mean we never will. Greenhouse theory is POSSIBLE, after all.

That all said, I have to revise something I said before; the error range for natural greenhouse is 0.2%, which is i turn mankind's contribution to greenhouse gases (ALL greenhouse gases)- not as small a fraction as I said before but still utterly insignificant.

it may or may not be getting hotter, but no matter what we do to the planet will survive... perhaps without us. maybe the next great spices will thrive on the excess heat... if in fact it is getting hotter. so noone really needs to worry... 500,000 years from now they will be arguing that its getting too cold, and that they didn't descend from humans. and if it is getting hotter maybe i'll buy some beach front property on antartica... the caribbean of the future....

Global Warning is crap!😄

The earth always heats up before it enters an ice age, we are currently in this phase, besides, 1 Volcano eruption releases more toxic gasses into the atmosphere than the entire worlds population can in 75 years.

Ozone layer?
Who needs it?
It's so 80s😘
😉

you need ozone layer or the UVs will fry that pretty volvo of yours p..with you in it 😈

Ush> Okay, let’s see if we can sort out our different views on this, without resorting to any undue impoliteness, hm?
1) There are lobby-groups on each side of the “fence”. One advocates anything from no global warming to not CO2. The other extreme is that global warming is solely caused by CO2 emissions. I adhere to neither. Do you?
2) You provide data showing NO melting. I provide data that shows the opposite.
70. Antarctic Peninsula -- Warming 5 times global average. Since 1945, the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a warming of about 4.5°F (2.5°C). The annual melt season has increased by 2 to 3 weeks in just the past 20 years.
73. Antarctica -- Ice shelf disintegration. The 770 square mile (1,994 km2) Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated suddenly in January 1995.
74. Antarctica -- Ice shelf breakup. After 400 years of relative stability, nearly 1,150 square miles (2,978 km2) of the Larson B and Wilkins ice shelves collapsed between March 1998 and March 1999.
122. Southern Ocean - Strong warming trend. Measurements from data recorders in the Southern Ocean waters around Antarctica show a 0.3°F (0.17°C) rise in ocean temperatures between the 1950s and the 1980s.
140. Antarctica - Decreasing Ice-thickness. The permanent ice cover of nine lakes on Signey Island has decreased by about 45% since the 1950s. Average summer air temperature has warmed by 1.8°F (1°C).
141. Antarctic Peninsula - Collapsing ice-shelf, January-February 2002. The northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf, an area of 1,250 square miles (3,250 km2), disintegrated in a period of 35 days. This was the largest collapse event of the last 30 years, bringing the total loss of ice extent from seven ice shelves to 6,760 square miles (17,500 km2) since 1974. The ice retreat is attributed to the region’s strong warming trend - 4.5°F (2.5°C) in the last 50 years.
(http://www.climatehotmap.org/antarctica.html)
So how do you know, that your data is the truth?

(BTW: Simply remove the commas, then the links work)

3) I am positive there is global warming taking place. The observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.
http://www.gfdl.gov/~tk/early_20th_cent_warming.html
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~bcm/HomePage/watson/CO2.jpg (From CalTECH http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~bcm/HomePage/watson/CO2.html )
http://www.floridawildlifemagazine.com/images/warming.gif
Do you or do you not contest global warming? (After that we can discuss what may be causing it).

I DO apologise for posting a picture from NASA, which shows the trends in an easy way. I wasn’t aware NASA was an environmental lobby-organisation.

You may call your counter-story more practical. “Here's what happened: White House climate experts took exception to the EPA tiredly repeating what has become conventional wisdom about global warming.” That, I’m sorry, sounds political, not practical. The writer seems to think it’s okay, then proceeds to note, that ” While there is probably some degree of warming going on, it is nowhere near certain that this is not mainly part of some natural climate variability. While human influence on the climate may be discernable, this does not mean that we are wrecking the world.” We don’t know that.

as said the temparature or global warming comes in cycluses, what they havent found out of yet is a pattern in it. We have had warmer summrs now, but since they started messure the temrature we have had just as warm summers 100 years ago as these last one was. The glaciers and polaqr caps are melting and then freezing again, As for the glaciers you Omega should be glad they expand and retracts every now and again, if they hadent there wouldnt been a Denmark😄 That country is solomly made up by the moraine gravel that flowed from the moving glaciers in Norway. 😄😄😄 👿

and the last reports says the the ozone layer is actually repairing itselfs, so until other proves it otherwise, which I am sure some one desperate will or else the enviromentalist looses a major momentum , then.......we are just as wise/dumb as we were 25 years ago

Finti> (Folds Arms) Are you calling Denmark a geological Norwegian colony? 😄

Yes, the Ozone layers is BEGINNING to repair itself. We’ve also cut down the freon-gas emission. Doesn’t mean you won’t get fried in the sun until… erm… was that 2017 or 2027. I can’t remember the number.
But, sure. No one really knows ANYTHING for sure yet. I just, personally, think it’s madness to ASSUME that CO2 or madmade reasons like deforestation can NOT play a role. Neither are good for us, whether or not the contribute to global warming. Anyone contesting THAT are welcome to go have a gulp of air in downtown Copenhagen during rush-hour.

Are you calling Denmark a geological Norwegian colony? 😂

That's whay he says about every country!😂